Saudi Arabia fools the West, again

Yet another war has broken out within Islam.

The richest nations of the Arab world are pummeling one of the poorest people on earth – the Yemenis.

As the deaths of helpless civilians mount, a lie of Goebellian scale is being perpetuated on the rest of us, who seem to have learned little from the propaganda that gave us Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”.

This time the bogeyman is Iran’s tentacles choking the sea lanes of Bab-el-Mandeb that separate Yemen from the African coast.

While the vast majority of Islamic terror attacks on the West, Middle East and South Asia have been conducted by Sunni Muslim jihadis, Saudi Arabia has somehow convinced us it is Shiite Islam and Iran that are to blame.

Now the Saudis have taken on the task of restoring democracy in Yemen by backing President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who was ousted in a popular insurgency by the Ansar Allah Party, better known as the Houthis.

The only problem is that none of the countries in the Saudi-led coalition of oil-rich Gulf Arab sheikhdoms that purportedly seek to restore democracy in Yemen have ever faced their own electorates.

In addition, they are the very countries that have been the source of funding for the world’s worst jihadi terrorist organizations, nations that have funded tens of thousands of Islamic madrassahs that churn out jihadis willing to die for Islam’s victory over the kufaar, the hated non-Muslim infidel.

The lie that has been floated and gobbled up by western analysts and politicians is that the Yemeni Houthis are a product of Iranian intervention in Yemen and thus pose a threat to western interests as well as the security of Israel.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Finnish anthropologist Susanne Dahlgren, who has lived in Yemen, points out in the Middle East Research and Information Project this week that the Shiite and Iranian links being slapped on to the Houthis have little substance.

She writes: “The Western media shorthand designating the Houthis as ‘Iran-backed’ and ‘Shiite’ is misleading at best, since Houthi grievances are home grown and the Zaydi sect to which the Houthis belong is a distant cousin of the Twelver Shi’ism championed by the Islamic Republic in Tehran.”

Dahlgren goes on to say, “Much huffing and puffing by Gulf (Arab) media notwithstanding, there was little evidence that Iran aided the Houthis in the intermittent fighting of 2004-2010, certainly not to the extent of Saudi Arabia’s military intervention against the Houthis in 2009.”

For the United States and, unfortunately, Canada to throw their weight behind this coalition of medieval dictators is not only unprincipled, but also suggests Middle East petro dollars and possible defence contacts are shaping Western foreign policy.

The Saudis have been very successful in convincing the West that it is not they who pose a threat to our liberties, but Iran.

This notwithstanding the fact that as early as November, 2013, the BBC’s diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, broke the news that Saudi Arabia had invested in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons projects for its own needs.

Urban reported, “several nuclear weapons made in Pakistan for Saudi Arabia are sitting, waiting for delivery.”

Canada should resist the temptations offered by Saudi Arabia, a regime accused of buying nukes off the shelf from a potentially hostile nuclear power – Pakistan, not Iran.

#letstalkmen Men suffered and died for the right to vote

On 23 March, while arguing the case on these pages for a Minister for Men, Tim Samuels apologised for trespassing on feminism’s most hallowed ground and said: “We men have not had to fight tooth and nail for our votes”.

No doubt, everybody would go along with that. Everybody in this country is taught from infancy that the Suffragettes had to wrest votes for women from a brutal male establishment that was protecting the monopoly exercised by all men. My daughters learned that lesson at primary school before they had even been introduced to the cardinal beliefs of the world’s leading religions.

As is so often the case with the feminist catechism however, everybody – including Mr Samuels – is looking at history with one eye. As a matter of fact, men did have to fight before all men could get the vote. And men’s fight was not conducted in debating halls, demonstrations and salons, nor even from the relative safety of the prison cell. Before all British men were allowed to vote, poor young men had to be wounded in millions and to die in hundreds of thousands in a war from which all women were exempted solely by reason of their gender.

Mr Samuels was writing almost exactly on the 99th anniversary of the Military Service Act, under which every British man 18-41 was subject to conscription for the First World War. The actual wording of the Act was that every man of that age was “deemed to have enlisted”.

Without any voice in the matter, therefore, every adult male was, from that moment, subject to military law. If he didn’t go quietly (most did, of course) he could be forcibly removed from his home and transported to the front where, if he protested that he couldn’t see any sense in that insane conflict, he might be subjected to a cursory field court martial and executed by firing squad.

Guess what? Most of the propertyless, working-class men who then suffered in the mud and were blown to shreds in some of the most gruesome carnage in human history had no right to vote. One of them was my own uncle Tom – a working-class private soldier conscripted at Christmas 1917 at the age of 18 and killed in battle at Cachy on the Somme on April 24, 1918. Nothing identifiable remained of him to bury.

Palmerston voiced the views of the ruling class in the nineteenth century when he wrote to Gladstone in 1864 and said: “I deny that every sane and not disqualified man has a moral right to vote. What every man and woman too have a right to, is to be well governed and under just laws”.

Before 1918, the vote was restricted not simply by sex but also by property qualifications. Roughly 60pc of adult men were then entitled to vote. At the 1910 general election, 7,709,981 men were registered to vote. By the time of the 1918 general election there were 12,913,166 registered male electors in the United Kingdom. The 1918 Act is, rightly, most famous for having brought more than eight million women into the electorate; but, for the first time, it also enfranchised more than five million men over the age of 21 without regard to property or class.

Introducing the Bill, the Home Secretary George Cave said: “War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men’s eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. It has made it, I think, impossible that ever again, at all events in the lifetime of the present generation, there should be a revival of the old class feeling which was responsible for so much, and, among other things, for the exclusion for a period, of so many of our population from the class of electors. I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise.”

The Bill was passed in the House of Commons by 385 votes in favour to 55 against. Not one woman was then sitting as an MP. The rotten repressive male Establishment voted 7-1 in favour of votes for some women (restricted at that point by age and property qualifications) and all men over the age of 21. In the 1928 Act, the franchise was extended to women on equal terms with men.

This mixed picture of the past is now almost entirely buried and forgotten. If you enter a Google search on “votes for men 1918”, you might find a handful of entries in among hundreds of pages about women’s suffrage. In my experience, not one person in 1,000 knows the full story.

For many years, as a kind of party trick, I have been asking people “how many men got the vote in the Representation of the People Act 1918?”. I have never met anybody who knew the answer. When, some years ago, I asked this question of my oldest friend – Oxford graduate in PPE and one of the most completely scintillating intellects I have ever known – he indignantly replied “None, of course.”

There is a reason why our view of this history is as biased, one-sided and prejudiced as the account of the Eighth Route Army that was taught to Chinese children under Mao.

The reason is that the whole truth is extremely inconvenient. It conflicts with the dominant feminist narrative which portrays women as the victims of repressive men, from whom liberation and progress had to be wrested by militant uprising. The true history of votes for women, however, is not a story of sex war but of a continuous progress of electoral reform over a century from 1832-1928 in which women’s suffrage was only one element.

It is also true that, as a whole, that complete story does credit both to Britain and to men whose memory deserves our continuing honour, compassion and respect.

Nandita Das: “Every man is a potential rapist. #letstalkmen #womenagainstfeminism

it would be a shame if her acting career is destroyed after calling men rapists

TWO MUSLIM women connected to ISIS/al-Qaeda arrested for planning to detonate explosive device in NYC

Two women living in Queens have been charged with planning to build a bomb that they wanted to detonate in the United States.

The women, Noelle Velentzas, 28, and Asia Siddiqui, 31, who until recently were roommates, were named in a complaint unsealed on Thursday in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, and were expected to appear in court on Thursday afternoon.

Ms. Velentzas and Ms. Siddiqui, who are American citizens, appeared to be interested in jihad, according to the complaint, which said they had been communicating with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula personnel and had been viewing violent videos made by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

In the complaint, the government said the plot advanced to the point that Ms. Siddiqui bought four propane gas tanks and stored them in a stairwell outside her apartment. Earlier, the women had bought potassium gluconate at a Queens pharmacy, bought the fertilizer Miracle-Gro (which can be used as a bomb component) and read about and discussed bomb-making.

#teamharpy Why aren’t we taking rape seriously? #womenagainstfeminism #letstalkmen

There was a time when rape and sexual assault were considered some of the most abhorrent crimes imaginable. No more.

Now, at least on college campuses, rape and sexual assault are considered mere disciplinary matters, no different than plagiarism or theft from a dorm. To non-college students, they are considered crimes.

You would think the issue was being taken seriously, given the mattress-carrying demonstrations and numerous marches with hand-made signs spouting catchy slogans like “non-consensual sex is rape.” But according to the activists, the solution to this problem — this so-called rape culture — is not to send serious crimes to the police, but to campus courts where the worst an accused student can face is expulsion.

The “seriousness” of the issue is addressed not by prosecuting and punishing offenses appropriately, but by removing due process rights from accused students. The preferred method is to take the word of all accusers as gospel, lower the burden of proof, and presume guilt on the part of the accused. This all makes it much easier to brand young men as “rapists” without having to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

And yet, by doing so, activists, the federal government and colleges have implied that rape and sexual assault are different from all other crimes. By refusing to turn accusations over to the police, activists are implying that rape and sexual assault are not police matters — at least for college students — and can therefore be handled by the same people teaching philosophyor fisheries sciences. They also risk leaving potential rapists free to rape others.

Why would an anti-rape activist behave this way? After discussions with feminist professors and campus administrators whose federal funding may depend on producing a few guilty men every now and, it’s not impossible to imagine that a student’s feelings of regret and guilt from a drunken hook-up turn into full-blown post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s hard to know just how many cases are like this, but it’s not hard to see why activists wouldn’t want the police involved.

That’s not to say every rape on campus amounts to a he said/she said situation (an incident at Vanderbilt University provides a sad example of why police should handle the investigations), but when rape accusations are treated no more seriously than those of cheating on a test, it muddies the water.

Alexandra Brodsky admitted as much during a recent panel in Washington, D.C., saying that “The point of school decision-making is not to be a sort of local police, you know, criminal justice equivalent, but to ensure that a student can continue to learn despite facing gender-based violence.”

Except that gender-based violence is a crime, not a disciplinary matter. And expelling an accused student doesn’t actually help the accuser, since her alleged attacker is now roaming the streets outside of campus, potentially endangering other women.

Activists insist that campus hearings with limited or non-existent due process rights are necessary to correct the wrongs perpetrated against women in the past. If their ultimate goal is to reduce sexual assaults, they’re failing, since bad people are going to do what bad people do.

But where they will succeed is in reducing the number of drunken hookups, but not for the reasons they want. Their theories would teach men not to have sex with any woman who has had even one drink (even if both have been drinking) because that is rape. In practice, however, this creates more gynophobia, as young men are more likely to avoid women for fear that one will bring an accusation against them for what they thought was a consensual encounter.

It’s a distinction activists might not care about, but it is important. If the desired goal is equality, swinging the pendulum so that one gender is fearful of the other is not the way to go.

#college #university The Many Ways Education Delays Adulthood

Education keeps people in a constant state of childhood by virtue of its very nature. Just think of your stereotypical frat or sorority, partying and living for the now. Going to classes you hate, doing assigned work without pay, and hearing moral lectures about character development. Does that sound like third grade or college?

Add in how people now take six years for a four-year degree and then go back for graduate degrees, and we have a society of 30-year-olds who have never functioned as full adults.

Almost everything I learned in college I could have learned on the internet. Nor did I even do much studying or socializing. I just wanted to get my degree and be done while hating every person who asked me, “What are you going to do with that?” It was a waste of a liberal arts education, something to check off of life’s list. I had (and somewhat still have) no idea what adults do for money and wasn’t very interested in finding out.

But this doesn’t begin with college. It starts much earlier. For most of human history, when you hit adolescence, you were an adult and were expected to act like one. Today when you hit puberty, you have at least another ten years left of childhood, and you find yourself in this weird mix of adult maturity and idealistic juvenility.

more at

false rape accuser: Leshia Ashmore



A Jones County woman was arrested Tuesday for allegedly falsely claiming she was kidnapped and raped.

Leshia Ashmore, 51, of Ovett said that she was at a convenient store in Ellisville when she was taken at gunpoint and driven to an unknown location and forcibly raped.

Jones County officials launched an extensive investigation and found that Ashmore’s allegations were not true.

Sheriff Alex Hodge said making false claims is a waste of resources and money for the sheriff’s department and the Ellisville Police Department.

“Make no mistake, it is against the law to falsely report a crime, but not only does it waste our professional team’s time and the tax payers’ money, it also is a slap in the face to actual victims who muster up the last bit of strength he or she has to report an offense.” Hodge said, “The Jones County Sheriff’s Department will pursue charges against Ashmore, because these were serious charges and investigated fully, taking valuable time away from legitimatecases.”

Ashmore faces two charges of false reporting of a crime from both departments.

According to officials, both departments are seeking financial restitution, and Ashmore could also be sentenced up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Alice Springs church vandalised with Islamic catchcry

A CHRISTIAN church in Alice Springs has had the words “Allah Akbar” scratched into their glass door and windows by a man who is alleged to have assaulted a security guard and thrown rocks at his car.

The phrase “Allah Akbar” is a poorly translated version of the Islamic phrase “Allahu Akbar” which means God is greater or God is (the) greatest.

A security officer saw a man allegedly scratching the front glass doors of the Desert Life Church on Undoolya Road in Alice Springs at 9.30pm on Saturday night.

The security officer stepped in to stop the 23-year-old man from damaging the doors further when police allege he assaulted the security officer.

Superintendent Travis Wurst said the security officer then went back to his vehicle to call police. “The security guard exited the vehicle, a short time later it is alleged the male attacked the vehicle by punching the windscreen and throwing rocks at it,” he said.

Desert Life Church senior pastor Keith Ainge said the alleged offender was not known to the church.

“I think from our perspective we are treating it as vandalism, we are not looking at any religious connotation or involvement in it,” Mr Ainge said.

However, he said it was possible ISIS’s ideology had spread into the community.

“It easily could be, because (ISIS) is in communities everywhere,” he said.

Mr Ainge said the violent videos depicting young extremists committing acts of terror was inspiring copycats.

“I’m sure it is, there is no question about it, you only have to read the newspapers,” he said. He said he didn’t know the perpetrator.

The church’s Sunday service attracts 400 people a week.

“I think the main concern is the inconvenience and its cost,” Mr Ainge said.

The 23-year-old was charged with assault a person and damage to property and will appear in Alice Springs Magistrates Court on April 9.

Originally published as Islamic sign scratched onto church

#Blacklivesmatter NIGERIA: Will The Newly Elected Islamist President Impose Sharia Law On The Christian Half Of Nigeria’s Population?

Or will he just allow Boko Haram to continue slaughtering the remaining Christians there? Barack Hussein Obama was behind the campaign to remove its Christian president from office and deliver Nigeria into the hands of the jihadists, the same way he was behind the Arab Spring and the ouster of Egypt’s Mubarak, Libya’s Gaddafi, and efforts against Syria’s Assad.

Muhammadu Buhari has won Nigeria’s presidential election, the country’s Independent National Electoral Commission said. He defeated incumbent Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian, by about 2 million votes. His presidential win is the result of his fourth attempt to lead the country since he was ousted 30 years ago. Buhari is a Sunni Muslim from Nigeria’s North, unlike Goodluck Jonathan who was from the Christian South.

Washington Times  Western foreign policy observers pre-occupied with the rise of ISIS in the Middle East should wake up to the reality unfolding in Nigeria. Opposition candidate General Buhari wants Sharia law throughout Nigeria. In fact, he wants it everywhere.

“I will continue to show openly and inside me the total commitment to the Sharia movement that is sweeping all over Nigeria,” Mr. Buhari said. “God willing, we will not stop the agitation for the total implementation of the Sharia in the country.”

Agitation? Is this an indication that Mr. Buhari supports violence because the end goal of the terrorist attacks throughout Nigeria and Africa is an Islamic state?

Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance and support to ISIS. The Northern Nigerian based Islamic terrorist group wants Sharia law throughout Nigeria and beyond. They are also actively terrorizing Chad, Niger and Cameroon with their goal of an Islamic state.

Mr. Buhari has also spoken sympathetically about members of the terrorist group Boko Haram, has cautioned against a rush to judgement on its members and has personally been selected by the terrorist group to lead its negotiations with the Government of Nigeria.

Mr. Buhari’s election as Nigeria’s head of state will be a disaster for Africa. (But a triumph for Obama who urged the Christian government in Nigeria to “show restraint” when dealing with Islamic terrorists)

Gender Insanity for $45,078 a Year


Caroline Narby is “five feet tall and pudgy,” she tells us at the beginning ofher article “My Butchness,” a rather solipsistic 2,000-word discussion of her sexual identity. Of course, I graduated from a third-tier state university in Alabama, where using a fancy word like “solipsistic” would be considered kind of a show-off move, but Caroline Narby is an alumna of Wellesley College, ranked No. 4 among liberal arts colleges by U.S. News & World Report. Annual tuition at Wellesley is $45,078, so when Carolina Narby (Class of 2011) gets solipsistic, buddy, she goes whole-hog. Among other things, she informs us that Wellesley has “a vibrant and visible LGBT community on campus,” and her first semester she took a course entitled “Gay Writing from Sappho to Stonewall.”

This is some high-class intellectual navel-gazing, y’all:

After agonizing over the matter and consulting and commiserating with other butch women, I’ve come to realize that butchness doesn’t need to be understood as “masculinity” at all. Its form and substance don’t have to be defined by its opposition to femininity.
Sometimes I like to think of butchness as a kind of satire. Not as a parody — not as a clownish imitation of manhood–but as part of a purposeful endeavor to dismantle the popular conception of masculinity and the hegemony that it represents. . . . [B]utchness works to deconstruct maleness and masculinity by co-opting behaviors and aesthetics that men have tried to monopolize. Butch is a trickster gender — and so, in a similar way, is femme. Lesbian gender expressions do not emulate heteropatriarchy, they subvert it. Femme removes femininity from the discursive shadow of masculinity and thereby strips from it any connotation of subordination or inferiority. Butch takes markers of “masculinity” and divests them of their association with maleness or manhood. Butchness works against the gender binary — the masculine/feminine paradigm — and reclaims for women the full breadth of possibilities when it comes to gender expression.
Other times, honestly, I just don’t like to think about my gender as a conscious political undertaking at all. I know that “the personal is political.” I know that no action or belief can possibly be apolitical because every social institution on every scale is steeped in ideology. But sometimes I just get so tired. Sometimes I want to just be.

You probably want to read the whole thing, complete with her description of Girl Scout Camp “where it seemed as though 99% of the staff were lesbians.” But you knew that, right?

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Caroline Narby is the blogger we met earlier, complaining of the “dehumanizing” nature of “sexuality under heteropatriarchy.” She now has a master’s degree in Gender and Cultural Studies and is “currently finishing up a second master’s in public policy,” because I guess after paying $45,078 a year to get your bachelor’s degree at Wellesley, you need two master’s degrees before you can be bothered to get an actual job. Meanwhile, she’s a blogger, and you might want to read her contributions at Bitch magazine:

The aim of this blog is to explore and interrogate popular representations of autistic sexuality and gender performance from a queer, autistic perspective.


Let’s don’t and say we did.

Nevertheless, there’s “Erasure and Asexuality”:


In my previous post, I remarked that an examination of cultural representations of queer autistic sexuality will inevitably end up as a discussion about lack and absence, because so few representations exist. . . . This reflects and reinforces the presumption that autistic people are too “childlike” or socially stunted to comprehend the idea of sexuality, let alone to actually have sex. The result of prevailing cultural attitudes is that autistic people are perceived as inherently non-sexual. . . .
What popular culture tends to do is to deny that autistic people possess the agency and self-awareness to think about and establish sexual identities. Ableism combines with the general erasure of asexuality, and the assumption that a lack of interest in sex equates to naïveté, to produce the idea that asexual-identified autists must be asexual because they are autistic. They are asexual not because they are self-aware individuals who happen to express a particular sexuality, but because somehow their autism renders them too naïve, “innocent,” or socially inept for sex. They are not asexual because that’s what they happen to be, they are non-sexual because they have no choice.
This assumption robs asexual autists of all romantic dispositions of agency and recognition.

To repeat: $45,078 a year it costs to learn how to write that stuff.

Singapore’s founding father: ‘we can integrate all religions and races except Islam’


Recently deceased, he preached ‘Asian values’ and turned a tiny, poor city-state into an astonishing economic success, and had this to say about Islam.

via Singapore’s Lee: ‘we can integrate all religions and races except Islam’. h/t Blazing& Sheik

Lee Kuan Yew ranks as one of the most successful statesmen of the 20th century, having led Singapore to independence, and built a thriving prosperous mini-state with a world class economy, out of an ethnically diverse population. He retired as the world’s longest serving prime minister, and at 87 years of age, has little to lose in speaking his mind.

Thus, his candor in discussing the assimilation of Muslims is perhaps understandable, but still startling in a world of political correctness and compulsory sensitivity to Muslims, who are never expected to reciprocate. Singapore has a substantial Muslim minority, mostly Malays but also some Indian Muslims. Throughout its history, Singapore has striven to keep ethnic tensions minimized among its diverse population (ethnic Chinese being the largest group [74%], followed by Malays[13%], Indians, and others — including many westerners). At one point in the 1960s, Lee spearheaded a merger with majority-Muslim Malaysia, but it quickly fell apart.

Now, Lee has published a book on Singapore’s future, and he is speaking his mind:

In the book, Mr Lee, when asked to assess the progress of multiracialism in Singapore, said:

“I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not wish to offend the Muslim community.

“I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration – friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians – than Muslims. That’s the result of the surge from the Arab states.”

He added: “I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam.”

He also said: “I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate.”

Mr lee then went on to speak of how his own generation of politicians who worked with him had integrated well, including sitting down and eating together. He said: “But now, you go to schools with Malay and Chinese, there’s a halal and non-halal segment and so too, the universities. And they tend to sit separately so as not to be contaminated. All that becomes a social divide.”

He added that the result was a “veil” across peoples. Asked what Muslims in Singapore needed to do to integrate, he replied: “Be less strict on Islamic observances and say ‘Okay, I’ll eat with you.’”

Hat tip: Andrew Bolt

Is Sexual Desire Dehumanizing? by the Other Mccain

Studying feminist theory requires an ability to maintain sanity in the constant presence of madness. Today while making my rounds inside the online feminist lunatic asylum, I encountered this:

When women say “But I like to be objectified! Doesn’t everybody, sometimes?” it used to annoy me, but now it just breaks my heart a little. Because she can’t disentangle being desired or loved from being treated like a thing. And she’s right. That’s the world we live in: We cannot conceptualize desiring a woman without dehumanizing her. That is sexuality under heteropatriarchy.

Who thinks this way? What strange structures have you built into your mental universe so that aesthetic admiration or erotic interest toward another person means you have “objectified” them, reduced them to “being treated like a thing”? On what basis does one discern the difference between love/desire (good) and dehumanized objectification (bad)? Does it not occur to people who talk this way that they are simplyoverthinking this stuff? Only very unhappy people, deficient in ordinary animal vigor, could permit their minds to become so cluttered with intellectual theory that they view sexual attraction in such terms.

So, who thinks this way? An autistic 26-year-old white “butch” lesbian who is “still figuring out gender stuff,” that’s who.

They’re defective. Darwinian errors. “Broken people.”

Scratch a feminist and a kook bleeds.

UPDATE: How did I miss this? The same person who wrote that quotealso blogs as “The Freelance Feminist,” and describes herself:

I hold a BA in Women’s and Gender Studies from Wellesley College and an MA in Gender and Cultural Studies. I’m currently finishing up a second master’s in public policy because I don’t want to stay trapped forever in the echo-chamber of academia.
More importantly, I’m an autistic butch lesbian. My politics are shaped much more by my own experience in the world than they are by my academic background. My work focuses on the intersection of gender, sexuality, disability, and embodiment. I have extensive experience with media analysis, and in my academic life I am trying to synthesize that with policy analysis. I want to draw attention to how cultural narratives inform collective attitudes which, in turn, shape policy. Stories are vitally important, and they reverberate through every aspect of our private, public, and civic lives.

Which just confirms everything I said previously, of course.

Feminism Requires a Theory of the Moral and Intellectual Inferiority of Males

If women are systematically oppressed by males, as feminist theory insists, the perpetrators and beneficiaries of this oppression — i.e., males — must be selfish and cruel. Quod erat demonstrandum.

After my previously described encounter with a Wellesley graduate, I continued my tour of the online lunatic asylum that is Feminist Tumblr, and came across this 171-word anti-male rant:

Ladies, here is a tip from me to you, some information that is going to set you free: men are never going to take you seriously. Men are conditioned from day one to see you as less than, to think you’re a joke, you’re weak, you’re stupid, you’re irrational, and you’re deficient. Most men never even attempt to unlearn that conditioning, let alone actually manage to do it. The second you stop shaping your life and your choices and your wants and yourself around how best to make men take you seriously is the second you can start actually living. Don’t play their shell-game. Don’t waste your energy or your brain space trying to figure out how to calibrate your actions to get the best reaction out of them. Stop doing everything you can to make your back as flat as possible so they have a smooth trip walking all over you. Demand your space, stop apologizing and accommodating, and let them figure out how the f–k to deal with it.

You might want to bookmark that one. It could come in handy the next time someone tells you that feminism isn’t about hating men.